MétaCan
← all works

Going from evidence to recommendations

2008· article· en· 1,791 citations· W2093770528 on OpenAlex· 10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.ae

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Opus teacher head0.622
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread
0.032 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

The GRADE system classifies recommendations made in guidelines as either strong or weak. This article explores the meaning of these descriptions and their implications for patients, clinicians, and policy makers

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue
BMJ
Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
McMaster University
Funders
Keywords
Computer science
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes